Printer-Friendly VersionHis personal favorability, once a strong point for Obama, has vanished and is now being replaced by a personal dislike that is dragging him down.

These data, buried deep in the latest NY Times/CBS poll (of registered voters, not likely voters) are both stark and important. In April, Obama had a 42-45 favorable/unfavorable rating, itself a shock given his vastly higher favorable ratings only a few months before. Now, he has a favorable rating of only 36% and an unfavorable rating of 48%.

The NY Times poll showed Romney getting 47% of the vote compared to 46% for Obama (again, this poll is of registered voters, likely voter polls are more pro-Romney). So that means that one-quarter of Obama's voters do not give him a favorable rating - a danger sign for the president.

What is most notable about this statistic is that it is not due primarily to the bad economy. While the Times poll showed that the percent of voters who feel he is doing a good job in handling the economy has dropped to 36%, Obama's ratings in this category have been low for some time. The drop in favorability is new.

Rather the cause of his decreased likeability is his negative campaigning, both in person and on the air. He is now no longer the sunny, optimistic, friendly person he portrayed himself as being in 2008. Instead, a nasty, surly, angry image has taken over.

This change is at the heart of Obama's dilemma. The more he goes negative, the more he hurts himself in the process and undermines the reservoir to good will that has sustained him through tough economic times.

As recently as one year ago, Obama's personal favorability was ten points above his vote share in most polls. Now it is ten points below it presaging further a likely further drop in his poll numbers.

It is said that the candidate dishing out negative ads doesn't take the heat. Maybe this is different. This is an incumbent President blanketing airwaves in July, not a summer of recovery, with personal destruction ads on his opponent while he is too busy to meet with his jobs team, too vain to visit Wisconsin during recall, too ideological to listen to the deficit commission and too stubborn to work out a tax deal with Republicans. Reelection and holding power is job one. To hell with you people.

Romney ran Bain, whatever each voter is going to think about that. Bill Clinton got caught lying about Jennifer Flowers before his first election, got caught taking young intern, Oval Office blow jobs in his second term - and voters including soccer moms still wanted to hear about his economic plan.

The smear ads on Romney end (I assume) with a proud, smiling President saying "I'm President Obama and I approve this message". It must look desperate. Also it makes you wonder why he isn't busy governing if he wants the job that badly.

Those ads should have been run by the outside groups but that is so hard to coordinate from the Chicago campaign headquarters without breaking federal campaign laws.---------------------------

* Latest poll in MN, one of the most yellow states, shows that Romney has cut Obama's lead in half and Dems losing by double digits on two ballot amendments, marriage and voter ID.

Henninger: America's Two Economies With Barack Obama, the competition between the private economy and the public economy is clear.By DANIEL HENNINGERLike this columnist

For a long time, the United States had one economy. Now we have two economies that compete for America's wealth: A private economy and a public economy. The 2012 election will decide which will be subordinate to the other. One economy will lead. The other will follow.

How the U.S. arrived at the need to choose between two competing economies reveals a lot about the political polarization in the country. Any history of the Democratic Party in the 20th century will recognize its roots in the American labor movement. The party was defined by the names of those unions. The United Mine Workers. The United Auto Workers. The Brotherhoods of Teamsters and Railroad Workers. Consider what those names represented: Both Democrats and Republicans were rooted in the private economy. Unionized workers knew then that this private economy was where they made their living. The arguments were over dividing the productive fruits of that economy. That was your father's Democratic Party.

From the 1960s onward, the professional Democratic Party began to lose its relationship with the private economy. Democratic politicians drew closer to a rising public-sector union movement and its campaign financing, while the private unions declined. This meant the party itself was slowly disconnecting from the machinery of the private economy and becoming part of a rising parallel economy, the public economy of government.

There was one other big event that convinced Democrats that their public economy was equal to or better than the private economy. It has to do with the Democratic Party's moral identity. After JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson passed the building blocks of the Great Society, notably Medicare and Medicaid. But most importantly came the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The legislative events of that period (no matter that they passed with bipartisan votes) convinced the Democratic Party once and for all of government's moral efficacy. Public spending, conclusively, was now a public good.

Today the private and public economies are in head-to-head competition for the nation's wealth—with the private economy calling that wealth capital or income, and the public economy calling it tax revenue and making moral claims for spending tax revenue.

Until recently and except for the Reagan years, the Republican Party has largely been a confused onlooker, uncertain how to embrace the private economy. In the 1990s, the party embraced the private sector mainly as a source of contributions via K Street lobbyists. In short, crony capitalism.

With the Obama administration, the tensions between the country's two economies clarified. The $831 billion spending bill in 2009 was intended to stimulate hiring of public-sector workforces but also among the satellite businesses that are subsidiaries of the public economy. Barack Obama's routine use of the traditional private-economy term "investment"—in energy, education and such—is the public economy claiming capital for its needs.

President Obama is telling the private economy it must subordinate itself to the public economy's moral efficacy. The passage in 2010 of the Affordable Care Act, with no Republican support, was justified as a 1960s-type act of moral necessity. The private economy, in his view, can't compete on that basis.

In the November 2010 elections, the private economy pushed back. Two years into the financial crisis and amid tea-party insurgencies, Democrats were swept out of office at every level of government.

These are not small events. Powerful belief systems are in motion today, and they are slamming into each other. Rep. Paul Ryan in the first sentence of his now-famous Roadmap budget said, "Rarely before have the alternatives facing America been so starkly defined." President Obama, announcing his ideas on taxes on July 9, said, "What's holding us back . . . is a stalemate in this town, in Washington, between two very different views about which direction we should go in as a country" (emphasis added).

Those are the two poles in an historic battle over who runs the American economy.

For about 40 years before 2008, spending as a percentage of GDP was around 20%. In 2009, it rose to 25% and has remained at 24% of GDP. This isn't just spending data. These numbers are a proxy for the standoff between the public economy and the private economy.

Some in the Democratic Party argue that this higher, "normal" spending level (the White House projects 22+% of GDP going forward) is necessary to fulfill the commitments our politics have made to retiring baby boomers and others. The role of the private economy in the U.S. will be to support the long-term wants and needs in the public economy.

President Obama is right: This is a choice between two paths into the American future, the clearest choice since the end of World War II. It is a mandate election.

Barack Obama is explicitly seeking a mandate to make the public economy pre-eminent. That is the unmistakable meaning of "You didn't build that." His opponent so far is talking about, but not seeking a mandate for, the other economy. One expects that in time Mitt Romney will seek a mandate equal to Mr. Obama's.

From Crafty's WSJ/Henninger post:Barack Obama is explicitly seeking a mandate to make the public economy pre-eminent. That is the unmistakable meaning of "You didn't build that."

Correct, no matter the meaning of 'that'. Some of us have been begging for that kind of clarity from Republicans for a few years here.

Clinton used to blur the differences and co-opt his opponents' agenda. RINOs do that too. In 2008, Obama was cautious and cryptic, speaking in platitudes, even when he told a plumber we need to spread the wealth. Now the President sounds hate-filled and angry: "You didn't build that!" A far cry from hope and change.

The lines are drawn; it's the chicken and the egg. One side says you couldn't have your business if not for the public sector. The other side argues that you can't fund our public sector without a healthy private sector.

(Should be a Media Issue...) At a time when Pres. Obama couldn't buy a good news story, he didn't need to. The useful idiots in the biased polling business have stepped up to the plate to declare Obama with big leads in key states. The poll becomes the news story hopefully in their mind giving the President a lift. No .;can prove them wrong in July. By late October they have to shape up their numbers to protect their rotten reputations. Meanwhile these outliars will linger and figure into the most respected polling averages for some time to come.

What they do in Florida for example is oversample Dems by 13 points. In a best case year or 2008, Obama won Fla by 4. In the most recent statewide contest wide nationwide implications, Republican Marco Rubio won Florida by a million votes and second place was a Republican. So much for polling Dems at +13 to get a result of the Dem leading by 6.

Curious to hear from Crafty's "pack" here what you think about the serious problem we currently face regarding the "Voluntarily State-Controlled Media" as Rush Limbaugh calls it. What is the solution? We have legions of "journalists" working today who are nothing more than political hacks. They trade in propaganda and selective reporting of news stories to promote their leftist agenda. Granted, we have conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel to counter them - but it appears the overwhelming majority of the public still gets their "news" - either directly or indirectly - from this volunteer "Pravda" network of "reporters." I'm not sure the Framers ever envisioned such a scenario.

What do you folks think?

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

I was asked today to be on local television to comment on the general election in November. I will be in studio for the duration of the coverage after the polls close. National and important state and local elections will be on the docket.

"Throughout election night, the national exit poll showed the Massachusetts senator leading President Bush by 51 percent to 48 percent. But when all the votes were counted, it was Bush who won by slightly less than three percentage points. Larger discrepancies between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote were found in exit polls conducted in several states. At the request of the media sponsors, Mitofsky and Lenski are continuing to examine exit polling in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two critical battleground states where the poll results were off."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22188-2005Jan19.html

With 3 months to go the election is coming down to a choice between President Obama's view that someone else broke it and he can't fix it and his opponents' view that the movement toward the policies of Obama that preceded his presidency brought the economy down and he can't fix it. At least we all agree that he can't fix it.

There are increasing numbers of people here who want someone else to pay for them.

Either one believes in traditional America, with capatilism free, enterprise, limited government, competition, or one doesn't care and they are on the dole.

Ideology is the issue but ideology alone won't win.

Most don't care about ideology. Most care about their pocketbooks.

So what am I saying? It is about ideology and yet it isn't.

No, what I am saying it IS absolutely about ideology. But Mitt is going to have to convince enough voters that the conservative ideology is the best for them, all of us, and America. He cannot speak in just "jobs", "unemployment", or "big government", or "statism", or "entitlements".

He has to speak about all of it and tie it all together. It doesn't appear that calling Obama a socialist is enough. Unfortunately, there are ever increasing numbers of poeple who basically want socialism. Free" health care, "free" educatuion (why never "free" legal care?). The crats are doing everything they can to expand their numbers with bribery using taxpayer money.

As Levin has FINALLY pointed out we can only hope there are more of us then them. I couldn't agree more and have felt this way for years and am glad the talking heads are finally saying it.

For they speak to the choir. The 40% firmly in the Democrat party camp are always going to want taxpaid beneftis -always - that is how they think.

I think the talking heads are now struggling to come up with a Romney theme that will get past the banner phrases and give enough voters the confidence his ideology is best for their pocketbooks. Just my take.

HOPEY-CHANGEY: Obama Campaign Sues to Restrict Military Voting.“President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election? . . . If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could ‘disenfranchise’ some voter, somewhere. We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter. Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military. Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The judge should reject it with prejudice.”

"This is shaping up to be the second election in a row that's about someone who isn't on the ballot: George W. Bush. ... If Bush-bashing was really hurting Obama's numbers, he'd stop doing it. ... Romney needs to explain to voters why he's not Bush 2.0. ... Obama did inherit a deficit when he came into office. Why this fact justifies racking up vastly more debt and bigger deficits is a logical mystery. ... In short, Romney needs to say that when it comes to spending and the growth of government, it's Obama who's closer to 'Bush on steroids.' To do so, Romney must challenge Obama's theories of both the past and the future. The notion that Bush was a government-shrinking market fanatic is bizarre. Under Bush, the federal government spent more than 3 percent of GDP on anti-poverty programs for the first time. Education spending rose 58 percent faster than inflation. Bush gave us Medicare Part D, the biggest expansion in entitlements since the Great Society -- until Obamacare. He signed Sarbanes-Oxley, created a whole new Cabinet agency (the Department of Homeland Security), and was the originator of the bailouts, TARP and the first stimulus program. Obama took many of these policies and approaches and expanded them." --columnist Jonah Goldberg

"Obama's usual campaign method ... has been to pry into the private records of his opponents. ... One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings. ... After having held a substantial lead just a month before the primary, Hull's campaign collapsed with the chatter about his divorce. ... As luck would have it, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced! ... [Jack Ryan] ... made hundreds of millions of dollars as a partner at Goldman Sachs, and then, in his early 40s, left investment banking to teach at an inner city school on the South Side of Chicago. Ryan would have walloped Obama in the Senate race. But at the request of -- again -- the Chicago Tribune, California Judge Robert Schnider unsealed the custody papers in Ryan's divorce five years earlier.... [R]yan dropped out of the race for the horror of (allegedly) propositioning his own wife and then taking 'no' for an answer. ... And that's how Obama became a U.S. senator. ... Obama's team delved into Sarah Palin's marriage and spread rumors of John McCain's alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod's pals in Chicago. It's almost like a serial killer's signature. So you can see what a pickle the Obama campaign is in having to run against a Dudley Do-Right, non-drinking, non-smoking, God-fearing, happily married Mormon. They've got to get their hands on thousands of pages of Romney's tax filings so that the media can -- as Romney says -- lie about them." --columnist Ann Coulter

Ronald Reagan forged a winning electoral majority on the stable foundation of what he described as a three-legged stool: fiscal discipline, traditional values and peace through strength. He understood it to be an appealing platform to the American people writ large, including of course economic, social and national security conservatives and the rest of his Republican Party.

Unfortunately, it seems increasingly, that today's Republicans want to bet that they can regain the White House by cutting off two legs from that stool - disregarding, if not dismissing outright conservative social issues and national security themes.

A case in point came last week as the G.O.P.'s 2012 presidential nominee, Governor Mitt Romney, declared that his campaign was "not going to talk about" the Left's attempt to punish the owners of Chick-fil-A for their stand on gay marriage. Neither would it be talking about the request made by Rep. Michele Bachmann and four of her colleagues for an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood influence operations that appear with increasing success to be targeting the Obama administration.

Whatever one thinks about marriage between people of the same sex, surely a man running as a business-friendly candidate would say whether he favors boycotts of privately owned businesses on the basis of the beliefs of their shareholders?

Similarly, the Republican standard-bearer could surely observe that there are statutes and administrative guidelines designed to protect individuals and the government from the possibility that foreign associates may seek to exercise influence on family members, friends, colleagues or their federal agencies that employ them. He could make clear that he supports the rights of members of the House of Representatives to inquire whether there have been breaches of those rules. He can say that he's reserving judgment on their concerns until we learn the results of the requested Inspector General inquiries.

Instead, Gov. Romney is signaling an indifference to these topics - and, in the process, sending a message that can only alienate those for whom such issues are not just important but determinative of their votes.

In past elections since the Reagan era, Republican establishment candidates and their strategists have taken the support of conservatives of all stripes for granted, sometimes contemptuously declaring "they have nowhere else to go." Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush (during his reelection race) and John McCain are testament to the failure to appreciate that, while conservatives may not vote for their opponent, they do have somewhere to be on election day: They can stay home

Mitt Romney is not exactly enjoying a surfeit of enthusiasm for his candidacy as it is. Failing to address matters of concern to the various parts of the Republican base - and to the future of our nation - is a formula for his defeat, no matter how compelling his position may be on economic and fiscal matters, the one leg of the stool on which his campaign currently rests.

It happens that there is another powerful reason for addressing in particular the national security portfolio and the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood. The next Commander-in-Chief will inherit a world substantially remade by the Obama Doctrine: "emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and diminishing our country."

Arguably, nowhere is that more true than in the parts of the globe where the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies are ascendant. That rise - and all that it portends for our one reliable ally, Israel, and what remains of our "friends" in the Mideast, South Asia, North and sub-Saharan Africa - will present grave challenges to our security and other interests.

We need to know how the man who would replace President Obama will contend with such a threat. To do so, we at least need to understand whether he regards it as such. And, if so, whether he is going to allow some of the factors that appear to have contributed to it - namely, the access the Obama administration has afforded to its councils to individuals with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood - to operate in his campaign and White House.

It is gratifying that Mitt Romney did not join some other Republicans in denouncing Representatives Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney for seeking answers to these sorts of questions as they relate to the present administration. Still, if he wants to become the leader of the Free World in the next one, Gov. Romney is going to have to address the mortal threat to it posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its civilization jihad - a stealthy, insidious form of subversion that will, unless checked, remove all three legs of the Reagan "stool" and the constitutional republic it has helped build and preserve.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. He is the […] Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. He is the best-selling author of "The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts." His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com [ x ].wayne@rootforamerica.com

Author's Website I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia.

Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.

This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.

By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But the reason for this baseless attack is clear- make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal.

My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.

Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.

If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?

I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?

If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses.

It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff.

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee and the author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian.” Read more at his website: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

***"Obama's usual campaign method ... has been to pry into the private records of his opponents. ... One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings. ... After having held a substantial lead just a month before the primary, Hull's campaign collapsed with the chatter about his divorce. ... As luck would have it, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced! ... [Jack Ryan] ... made hundreds of millions of dollars as a partner at Goldman Sachs, and then, in his early 40s, left investment banking to teach at an inner city school on the South Side of Chicago. Ryan would have walloped Obama in the Senate race. But at the request of -- again -- the Chicago Tribune, California Judge Robert Schnider unsealed the custody papers in Ryan's divorce five years earlier.... [R]yan dropped out of the race for the horror of (allegedly) propositioning his own wife and then taking 'no' for an answer. ... And that's how Obama became a U.S. senator. ... Obama's team delved into Sarah Palin's marriage and spread rumors of John McCain's alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod's pals in Chicago. It's almost like a serial killer's signature.***

Agreed! That is why it is very likely Alexrod is either the leaker of responsible for another person leaking military security issues from the WH to the NYT.I never thought I would live to see it but these guys are even sleezier than the Clinton team - and they are sleezy.

Good post and very good point made by obj on govt programs and ending welfare reform. Pres. Obama seeks to run on Clinton's jobs record yet oppose him on Clinton's jobs agenda.

Speaking of the legs of a stool, with a nudging from Newt and the 1994 electorate, Clinton built some growth success on some solid conservative principles:

a) Capital gains tax rate cuts spurring American investors to invest in America, Obama opposes that, see the Obama-Buffet rule. After-tax tax rates needs to be higher than regular tax rates.b) Ending the unpopular quest for national health care. He got beat up in the mid term, changed the agenda and sidelined his unpopular wife. Imagine that.c) "The age of big government is over." Actual quote. At least in rhetoric, there is not a government program that cures all problems.d) Free trade to grow jobs and build prosperity.e) "Ending welfare as we know it." The timing was perfect. They messed with comfort of idle welfare at the same time that businesses were begging for workers.

For Obama, he is trying two familiar takes on insanity. Do more of the same in terms of policies for a second term and expecting a different result, and using the opposite strategies to those that grow jobs but expecting job growth to re-appear anyway.

Monday Morning Outlook ________________________________________The Romney-Ryan Achilles Heel To view this article, Click Here Brian S. Wesbury - Chief Economist Bob Stein, CFA - Senior Economist Date: 8/13/2012 When Mitt Romney chose Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate he guaranteed that the 2012 presidential race will be about two opposing economic philosophies.Not even 1980 had such a clear choice. The economy was in recession with double-digit inflation – people demanded change. It’s true that Reagan spoke about getting government off our backs, but President Carter had cut the capital gains tax rate and deregulated both trucking and airlines. Senate Democrats, who ran the Joint Economic Committee, published a report called “Plugging Into the Supply-Side.” Reagan altered the course of America, but he did it with bi-partisan support.This year, President Obama wants to raise tax rates on the rich and massively expand the government’s role in health care. Senate and House Democrats agree. President Obama has been clear; he believes government’s role in the economy should be larger than it has ever been.The Romney-Ryan team wants to reform Medicare, Medicaid and President Obama’s health care law. They believe tax rates should be reduced. Vice Presidential candidate Ryan says “Our rights come from nature and God, not government.”It will be clear to voters which side the candidates are on and, as a result, this election could determine the direction of the American economy for decades to come.What will make this even more interesting is that Republicans have an Achilles Heel and it is certain that it will be attacked. Back in 2008, during the financial crisis, many Republicans supported TARP – a massive interference in the free market. It was sold as protection against a collapse in the economy caused by toxic assets and greedy bankers.We think TARP was a mistake. As former Wells Fargo CEO Richard Kovacevich has said, “TARP was one of the greatest economic mistakes ever made in the history of the US. It…caused our citizens to question our entire free market system.” We could not have said it better.The problem is that by voting for TARP, Republicans admitted that they think we need the government to rescue us from “market failure.” So, Democrats can ask Paul Ryan (who voted for TARP) why he thinks bailing out banks is OK, but why he’s against fixing “market failures” in health care and other sectors.In Ryan’s defense, at that time he was a member of the minority party. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and she decided what came up for a vote. Moreover, there was a bipartisan consensus of “too big to fail.” Congress was told that big banks might fail and, in that situation, not giving them aid would have broken an implicit promise to the markets.The better free market approach would have been ending overly strict mark to market accounting rules. That was eventually done in March 2009, and the stock market and economy started rebounding almost immediately.But that wasn’t Ryan’s choice to make in late 2008. Most Republicans ignored the accounting rule and pushed forward in support of a big government bailout.That bailout (TARP), and what it signifies, is a problem for Republicans. They will have to explain it somehow and still fight for free markets. It’s a headwind they created for themselves, a black mark on their free market credentials. Nonetheless, the differing philosophies of government’s role in the economy are still very clear. 2012 is a huge election.

What’s more, even when it comes to cutting the deficit, most Americans don’t believe in doing it exclusively through tax cuts. According to Pew, in fact, even a majority of rank-and-file Republicans prefer cutting the deficit through both tax hikes and spending cuts than doing so through spending cuts alone. And when asked about Medicare spending, Americans want it to go up by a factor of more than 3 to 1. It’s not that most Americans could never stomach any cuts in, or changes to, Medicare, but given how much they value the program, they consider such changes a last resort. And they suspect that right-wing Republicans, given their ideological antipathy to federal domestic spending, consider such cuts a first resort instead.

It’s hard to blame Romney’s advisers for gambling on Ryan. Yes, turning the campaign into a referendum on Medicare cuts doesn’t bring the greatest odds of success. But if you believe Romney was on a losing trajectory already, what was there to lose? Except maybe the House and Senate.

I don't think you or the daily beast understand that the people who think they can spend more and more and more and get someone else to pay for it or not pay for it are in Governor Romney's target market in the first place. They already have an app for that!

If you are so certain of the consistency and accuracy of your pushpolling links, then how do you explain the win of Republicans in the most recent election by 7 points nationally with the same choices on the table?

I was very unhappy with Bush. Frankly, although I know you disagree, I think Obama inherited many of the currentproblems from Bush. Also, the world's economy is in the doldrums; it's not just us. Obama is not that bad.

I, as the article pointed out, believe it should be combination of cuts and tax increases. I believe in protecting the middle class;I don't think the "rich" will mind nor will it change their lifestyle to pay another 2-3 percent. Further, I think capital gains, franklyall income should be taxed nearly the same. Romney's 12% tax rate, maybe lower in previous years, and even lower under Ryan's proposal, doesn't seem right to me when others, i.e. middle class are paying over 30%.

I don't think Romney really understands the middle class. Or has empathy.

So if I could vote today, I would probably vote for Obama. If McCain had been president, I don't think the economy would be muchbetter, although he might have acted differently. Yet I would have voted for McCain excecpt for his age AND his absolutely terrible choice for VP. He's more middle of the road (reasonable) and aligned with my opinion; Romney day by day is going right and further right....

That said, we do need to address Medicare and Social Security (raise the age?). And make some cuts, including the military.

Thank you JDN; that was a very responsive post. The question was who would you choose today so I have no argument. That is your choice and those are your reasons. The point of my question was that I did not understand all the negativity about Romney if you were still going to vote for him, but if after all we've been through you still support Obama, then your negative feelings about Romney are genuine.

"I think Obama inherited many of the current problems from Bush." - Don't forget the Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Biden congress. We had 4.6% unemployment when Dems took congress not 8.3 or 9 or 10%. It came from Bush. It came from Dems and it came from Dems in congress and it came most elected Republicans who supported to some degree all the same CRAp: a federal program for everything, spending beyond our means, straying from all principles, regulations beyond logic and a government that controls markets and centrally tries to pick winners and losers.

"Also, the world's economy is in the doldrums; it's not just us." - That is a one edged sword? We used to lead the world but now it is that their demise bringing us down. Why not a mention that our wrong-headed policy-based failure to recover is bringing down the world economy?

"I...believe it should be combination of cuts and tax increases." - Just a few weeks ago I thought we agreed to distinguish tax revenue increases and tax rate increases. As Crafty already posted, there are no spending cuts in anyone's proposal so that half is hot air and the historic correlation is with increasing tax revenues by cutting tax rates rather than by increasing them. Years of citing data, links, studies and proof can not trump such likable rhetoric from big government ideologues. Even Obama admits that raising tax rates is about "fairness" not revenues. Four historic examples AGAIN: JFK's ( a Dem) tax rate cuts had a lasting effect, Reagan tax rate cuts doubled revenues within a decade, Clinton-Gingrich capital gain rate cuts led to a balanced budget and even W Bush's rate cuts caused the static scorers to misunderestimate revenues with forecasting shortfall errors in the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS. Oh well. Maybe some else reading these threads got the point.

"I don't think the "rich" will mind nor will it change their lifestyle to pay another 2-3 percent."

- They may not mind it or all vote against it but they do invest and employ less at the margin. "2-3%" is not the increase that is on the table from the Obama administration 2.0. More like a tripling of cumulative tax rates in some cases.

"Further, I think capital gains, frankly all income should be taxed nearly the same."

- I think you mean quadruple-taxed the same; most capital gains have already been taxed at least 2 or 3 times before you figure the 15% additional or whatever that rate becomes. A long term capital gain at anytime in our lifetime has by definition an inflation component to it. Have you EVER taken the time to read, think, understand and agree that continuous devaluation of the dollar is not income?!?!

"Romney's 12% tax rate, maybe lower in previous years, and even lower under Ryan'sproposal, doesn't seem right to me when others, i.e. middle class are paying over 30%."

- The top 20% earners in this country make 50% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes. Any implication that the rich as a group do not pay their share is based on lies and deception. The group that isn't paying their share is the poor and no one is proposing that they do. If you could confiscate every penny earned by the rich you still can't pay for spending at these levels. What perplexes me is your previous support of Huntsman's plan which is markedly to the right of both Romney and Ryan. Huntsman proposed ELIMINATING all federal taxes on capital gains http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/31/news/la-pn-huntsman-economy-20110831 because the income has already been taxed.

"I don't think Romney really understands the middle class." - The middle, median, 50th percentile adult in this country pays ZERO federal individual income tax. The thing that Romney needs to understand, and does, is that killing off investment kills off jobs. What is to understand about anyone who is working his/her tail off except that they might like the opportunity to make more, keep more and not pass on all that debt to their children.

"He's (McCain) more middle of the road (reasonable) and aligned with my opinion; Romney day by day is going right and further right...."

- Obama was the leftmost Senator and our leftmost President. McCain was the most "middle of the road" possible and yet you chose the leftmost over the centrist. Romney was the RINO-most of the Republicans running. Did you not see the hate speech on the far right sites towards him. :wink:He picked a very reasonable and thoughtful running mate (who wants to raise spending by just 5 trillion) and still you prefer the leftmost. That speaks about you, not much about him. I seriously appreciate your very candid comments. No offense but the goal is not to win over people who want the leftmost President to continue to transform, not reform. The goal over on our side is to defeat you.

The reason Bush was such a big spender was precisely because, he, Rove, and the "compassionate conservative" crowd were trying to keep up with the Democrats in appearing kind, "compassionate", for the "po", for the struggling masses if you will.

It was a spending spree to keep up with the tax and spend Democrats who are relentlessly willing without end to find reasons and ways to tax more and spend more essentially buying off more and more voters. The Bush crowd is clearly fearful that if they don't do something to beat the Crats at their own game the crats will continue to buy off more and more voters as they are successfully doing.

Some years ago I agreed with this supposed compromising strategy. Now I realize it was all misguided. We cannot have two parties competing to spend more taxpayer money to pay for more and more entitlements.

The country is going over a cliff. And the left will never be satisfied till America is driven down to a status like all the other countries. Liberals appear hell bent on the concept that America's wealth and those of the white race must be shared throughout the world. And one central government will control it all.

So Bush was wrong as are all the Bushes.

Romeny choice in Ryan was sound. We make a stand now or we can kiss the country goodbye. The stricter conservatives are right in my view.

JDN, afrter reading your posts for years, I don't recall you ever spending any serious time bashing Democrats. You always find ways to bash Republicans.

Why don't you just say tyou are a Democrt and of course you will vote for Obama. Just get it over with. Why try to kid us aftera ll these years. You certainly want big brother entitlements. Your posts for years reflect this.

We used to argue the merits of smaller government versus bigger government, compromising with big spenders versus not. Now we argue big government versus going bigger and bigger and bigger with no idea whatsoever how to pay for it. Can't we get 51% or so to settle for just big government at all levels instead of total control of all aspects of our lives?

As posted, taking a 4 trillion/year out of control spending habit, keeping all of it and increasing it by 5 trillion over 10 years is still considered hard right politics and pushing Granny over the cliff.

Yes, Doug. I recall our discussions on this issue. I was wrong. There is no compromise with liberals. There is no end to their demands. We have gigantic government now. ****Endless**** entitlements programs, government programs, government organizations. Yet their prescription is to tax and spend and expand this even more!

We cannot compromise. We already have. There simply is no compromise. Stop it now or we are done.

In medicine every single thing I do is or will be scrutinized at *industrial* assembly line quality control levels. Every single thing I say, I write, I do, every decision, every move, everything I don't do will collected sent stored and analyzed by people who will credit, discredit, reward, punish, pay for, refuse to pay for, make public, correct, make me redo, question, critique, "approve", not "approve", warn, and more.

If not enough, one false move, one mistake, I can be sued for years.

I am used to this in medicine. It gets sworse not better everyday. But,

I don't want this for the rest of my life's endeavors. I don't want my car black boxed. I don't want my electric bill evaluated for the wrong usage, my water bill scrutinized for the amount of flushes, or my grocery bill scrutinized and taxed because obama doesn't approve of my food choices.

Despite all this I work several months a year to have it confiscated and doled out to the predominantly Democratic parties pet constituencies who of course vote them right back in office.

The Democrat party comeback is, I should pay more taxes, shut the fuck up, because I might be accused of being a biggoted white boy, who had the God damn nerve to have had the ood fortunebrought up in a good (we were confortable but not rich) and nurturing family.

I like compromise. Even Reagan compromised a lot, but people on the right seem to forget that.

As for McCain, I like his centralism. And integrity. But especially given his age, his choice for VP was very important to me. Palin was an atrocious choice, almost a joke; frankly, I think many Republicans agree with me.

Back to my point; even Romney when he was governor was basically a centrist.

But every year since he has gone further right; now during this election he's about to fall off, or maybe he's being pushed, the right wing cliff. Too bad....

Bigdog, Thanks for posting that. It is not that uncommon that economists don't like the conclusions that others draw from their research. The headline is quite clear but the arguments made by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post that follow seem quite convoluted to me, and there were far more than 3 economists quoted in that piece.

I'm glad we are trying to hold both sides accountable. The study (Tax Policy Center) currently being cited by Obama regarding the Romney economic plan is one of the most deceptive I have seen in years of watching deception, and the main attack still levied against Paul Ryan on Medicare was awarded Politifact's 2011 Lie of the Year Award, not exactly a right wing organization. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

Ezra Klein: "Hubbard, Mankiw, Taylor and Hassett make three main points: The first is that this recovery has been terribly slow, even by the standards of post-financial crisis recoveries. The second is that the Obama administration made a grievous error by relying on (spending) stimulus. And the third is that Romney’s tax and economic plans would usher in an era of rapid growth that would both be good for the country and provide the boost to revenues and employment necessary to make their numbers work out." - So far, so good. Should have stopped there IMO.

“This recession is really quite different,” Bordo said. But he didn’t see government policy as the obvious cause. - That is absurd IMHO and not at all studied or proven in the research cited.

"Both Sufi and Bordo agree that the housing market was at the core of this recession..." - Nothing about houses, 2x4's, roofs or siding caused or the bubble or the collapse. It was the government policies toward creation of money and lending on houses without regard to creditworthiness or logic that led to the insanity. Mortgages were 90% federal and the rest were all under the complete jurisdiction of botched federal regulations.

Klein regarding economist Bordo: But when I probed whether Bordo was implicitly criticizing the Obama administration’s housing policies, he essentially shrugged. “We didn’t have massive government intervention in it anyway,” he says.

What?? 90% control of mortgages and moratoriums on foreclosures including the 10% they didn't control along with infusions of trillions and lending based on non-creditworthiness considerations, this is not massive government intervention?? Nonsense, and also NOT IN THE STUDY.

The only quote in the paper from Bordo that I saw is that "a slow growth recovery is not inevitable". http://www.docstoc.com/docs/125714335/Romney-Tax-Reform-White-Paper That is fair conclusion one could make looking at 26 cycles studied in the research paper that Bordo co-authored and pretty close to their own conclusion: "Our analysis of the data shows that steep expansions tend to follow deep contractions, though this depends heavily on when the recovery is measured. In contrast to much conventional wisdom, the stylized fact that deep contractions breed strong recoveries is particularly true when there is a financial crisis. In fact, on average, it is cycles without a financial crisis that show the weakest relation between contraction depth and recovery strength." http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Bordo-Haubrich-Steep-Paper-SNB%209_7.pdf (This contraction most certainly had a financial crisis!) If Bordo now contends that this slow recovery was inevitable, then maybe he is satisfied with current economic growth. The rest of us aren't. Pretending that what is wrong in this economy today is about housing when nearly everyone has a house and houses are arguably still overvalued is absurd, and not demonstrated in the study. Isn't ousing construction according to Wesbury is growing faster than the rest of the economy anyway?

4 years past Bush we are on a glidepath to never solving our problems without changing leadership and changing direction and making serious governmental reforms. Meanwhile Ezra Klein with an unhidden agenda writes about shiny objects, over here!

The current policy direction arrow on all major Obama policies is anti-growth. Other goals, Pres. Obama's quest for 'fairness' and his propensity to give goodies to targeted constituent groups, are paramount to seeking enterprise driven growth in all policy considerations as far as I can see.

The way you recover housing is to allow incomes to grow. The way you grow incomes is to allow economic freedoms to expand. These policies are aimed entirely in the opposite direction. This is Decline by Design no matter how it is spun. MHO

JDN, you crack me up. Accepting spending at the 4 trillion level and increasing it over 10 years by 5 trillion is not failure to compromise; that is utter hogwash. It is the other side that failed to compromise to the point of governing by czar, by executive order and by passing transformational legislation without attracting a single crossover vote. So that can't be your real yardstick. Like CCP said, you just need to admit it; you are one of them.

[Romney] "during this election he's about to fall off, or maybe he's being pushed, the right wing cliff"

FWIW, the right wing, tea party, fiscal conservative, expanding individual liberty, returning to founding, limited government principles movement is not the cliff. Nice try. We don't want to stop you from driving a Prius, giving to the poor, choosing your doctor, changing your work schedule or eating an organic french fry. The status quo is the cliff. Stay on it and the next generation is bankrupt.

"It is not that uncommon that economists don't like the conclusions that others draw from their research."

A few things, Doug:

1. So? Isn't it possible that it isn't uncommon because people don't understand the article?

2. Really? I know several economists, and not one of them has ever said this to me.

3. As an academic, I find it flattering when my work is cited (I was recommended reading for the Obama transition team... pretty neat!). I think I would be frustrated if my work was used to support something I didn't say, or even something contrary to what I said. You don't find it somewhat disconcerting that the majority of the economists cited don't support the position taken?

I found the title disconcerting enough to look into it. I did not find the distinctions made by the economists to be so. I posted links and exact quotes. In the Bordo example the research was the in-depth data about 26 downturns and recoveries collected and presented. The analysis is what different economists make of that. That the analysis would come out differently would not be disconcerting, but as quoted it did not seem to be very much different. I disagree strongly with interview points made by Bordo, that this is not a policy caused downturn for example and the implication that 1.5% growth (economic decline) is all that is possible now because of the static nature of housing. I agree very strongly with Prof. Taylor that robust growth is possible right now with the right policy mix. Looked to me like it was Bordo disagreeing with conclusions in his own co-authored study that I quoted verbatim in my post. Why? I don't know but it would seem he wanted to distance himself from any implication that he was endorsing Romney's plan. It is clear that he isn't. Klein reports that two economists differing with the Romney plan also disagree with each other. Not uncommon, but the data one researched on recoveries and the other on the negative effect of cash for clunkers I still find relevant and helpful.

Constitutional law I think is a perfect analogy. Wouldn't it be possible that two reasonable and honest Justices could hear and quote the same oral testimony or written argument or empirical study but draw a different conclusion?

In economics the example that comes to my mind is a paper published by Christina Romer in June 2010 "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks" arguably making the case that any significant 'fiscal shock' could push the fragile recovery back into recession just as the administration was fighting to do exactly that with tax rate increases. I don't think the intent of her work was to give backing to administration opponents but it did and she was out of that job as chief economic adviser to the President in a matter of days. Later the President backed temporarily away from that policy for the same reasons. (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/RomerandRomerAERJune2010.pdf)

------Very cool to be cited by the transition team! If you are willing to send any links to your writings by private message I promise to respect your privacy and anonymity on the board.

Mitt Romney: What I Learned at Bain Capital My business experience taught me how to help companies grow—and what to do when trouble arises. When you see a problem, run toward it before the problem gets worse..Article Comments (394) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.27EmailPrintSave ↓ More ..smaller Larger By MITT ROMNEY The back-to-school season is here, and as parents take their children to shop for school supplies, I suspect that many of them will be visiting a Staples store. I'm very familiar with those stores because Staples is one of many businesses we helped create and expand at Bain Capital, a firm that my colleagues and I built. The firm succeeded by growing and fixing companies.

The lessons I learned over my 15 years at Bain Capital were valuable in helping me turn around the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. They also helped me as governor of Massachusetts to turn a budget deficit into a surplus and reduce our unemployment rate to 4.7%. The lessons from that time would help me as president to fix our economy, create jobs and get things done in Washington.

A broad message emerges from my Bain Capital days: A good idea is not enough for a business to succeed. It requires a talented team, a good business plan and capital to execute it. That was true of companies we helped start, like Staples and the Bright Horizons child-care provider, and several of the struggling companies we helped turn around, like the Brookstone retailer and the contact-lens maker Wesley Jessen.

My presidency would make it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses to get the investment dollars they need to grow, by reducing and simplifying taxes; replacing Obamacare with real health-care reform that contains costs and improves care; and by stemming the flood of new regulations that are tying small businesses in knots.

My business experience confirmed my belief in empowering people. For example, at Bain Capital we bought Accuride, a company that made truck rims and wheels, because we saw untapped potential there. We instituted performance bonuses for the management team, which had a dramatic impact. The managers made the plants more productive, and the company started growing, adding 300 jobs while Bain was involved. My faith in people, not government, is at the foundation of my plan to strengthen America's middle class.

I also saw firsthand through these investments how energy costs impact the ability of a business to grow. Today, energy costs are weighing on job creators across America because President Obama has limited energy exploration and restricted development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs. I will take a sensible approach to tapping our energy resources, which will both create jobs and make energy more affordable for every sector of our economy.

Enlarge Image

CloseBloomberg .In the 1990s, when the "old-technology" steel industry in the U.S. was failing, Bain Capital helped build a new steel company, Steel Dynamics, which has grown into one of the largest steel producers in America today, holding its own against Chinese producers. The key to its success? State-of-the-art new technology.

Here are two lessons from the Steel Dynamics story: First, innovation is essential to the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. We are the most innovative, entrepreneurial nation in the world. To maintain that lead, we must give people the skills to succeed. My plan for a stronger middle class includes policies to give every family access to great schools and quality teachers, to improve access to higher education, and to attract and retain the best talent from around the world.

The second lesson is that we must have a level playing field in international trade. As president, I will challenge unfair trade practices that are harming American workers.

Running a business also brings lessons in tackling challenges. I was on the board of a medical diagnostic-laboratory company, Damon, when a competitor announced that it had settled with the government over a charge of fraudulent Medicare billing. I and fellow Damon outside board members joined together and immediately hired an independent law firm to examine Damon's own practices.

The investigation revealed a need to make some changes, which we did. The company, along with several other clinical-laboratory companies, ended up being fined for billing practices. And a Damon manager who was responsible for the fraud went to jail. The experience taught me that when you see a problem, run toward it or it will only get worse.

That will be my approach to our federal budget problem. I am committed to capping federal spending below 20% of GDP and reducing nondefense discretionary spending by 5%. This will surely result in much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington. But a failure of leadership has created our debt crisis, and ducking responsibility will only cripple the economy and smother opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

I'm not sure Bain Capital could have grown or turned around some of the companies we invested in had we faced today's anti-business environment. Andy Puzder, the chief executive of CKE Restaurants Inc., which employs about 21,000 people at Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants, has said that the "current unfriendly economic environment perhaps best explains why American companies are sitting on over $2 trillion which they could invest."

President Obama has piled on excessive regulations, proposed massive tax increases, added more than $5 trillion in federal debt, and failed to address the coming fiscal cliff—all of which is miring our nation in sluggish growth and high unemployment.

I know what it takes to turn around difficult situations. And I will put that experience to work, to get our economy back on track, create jobs, strengthen the middle class and lay the groundwork for America's increased competitiveness in the world.

smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.1EmailPrintSave ↓ More ..smaller Larger It is good that Joe Biden is going to the Republican National Convention to hold high the flag of his party. People make fun of his gaffes, of his embarrassing verbal forays, but he's no fool and he knows how to take it to the other guy. The speech he is working on, to be given in the heart of downtown, just across from the convention site, will be stirring and stentorian: "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Tampa, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, 'Ich bin ein Tampon.'"

I wish that were mine. It came in the mail from a Hollywood screenwriter, one of the gifted conservatives who quietly toil there.

***Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife Ann in Schaumburg, Ill., in March..This, amazingly enough, is how the campaign feels at the moment: both neck and neck and wide open. A week ago a longtime elected official, who's been making the rounds in his swing state, told me he thought the national polls were correct and yet wrong. Americans are telling pollsters they've already made up their minds, they know who they're for. But, he said, he's seeing a number of people who don't feel fully satisfied with their decision, who aren't certain they've made the right choice. They may change their minds. "Ten or 15%", he guessed, "are still persuadable," still open to argument.

If he is right, that's big. It would be in line with the singular nature of this election year, and would explain what has been, so far, a fervor deficit.

***So, Tampa. No one can guess the highlights in advance, but some hopes:

That Gov. Chris Christie brings his Garden State brio, that he is bodacious, funny and pointed, and that people say, the next day, "Man, Obama—Christie really opened up a can of Jersey on him."

That Sen. Rob Portman, whom many thought would, like Mr. Christie, have been a very solid vice presidential nominee, will get the best kind of revenge, which is constructive revenge. He is well placed to do for Mitt Romney what Ronald Reagan did for Barry Goldwater in 1964, which was make the case better than the nominee ever did.

It would be good to see Sen. Marco Rubio and talk about the meaning of things, the meaning of politics. He's a young man in the big game. Why?

Paul Ryan will be exciting, somehow you know that in advance. But he should perhaps keep in the back of his mind something that hasn't been mentioned much. People are saying—not as a criticism, not as a compliment, but musingly—two words: "He's young."

They've just had a bad experience with young, with President Obama. Mr. Ryan stands for big change in terms of programs, and people will be inclined to want some years in such a person. So he and his people should consider that 42 can be a plus or a minus, and think about how to enhance the former and lessen the latter.

***How will voters judge Mr. Romney's speech? The answer comes in some questions:

Is it fresh? Is it true? Does it substantiate—add substance to—what we think we know of Mitt Romney? Does it deepen and broaden our understanding of him? Does it make us, as we listen, begin to see him as a possible president? Presidents are in our face 24 hours a day now. Is this someone we'd let in our living rooms for four years? Can he inspire?

Free advice is worth the price, and here goes:

If you want to lead America, you have to speak to the fix we're in, and that means addressing spending. But economic probity has a friend called economic growth, and that is what people care so much about—jobs, opportunity, the competitive advantage conferred by good policies. Are we a vital nation able to grow, to take on our true size again?

Emphasis is everything. Emphasize dynamism.

Mr. Romney shouldn't just repeat what he thinks but tell people why he thinks it, what life has taught him that formed his views.

He shouldn't shy away from religion. Why should he? This is America. It was in the practice of his faith that Mr. Romney came, as a bishop of the Mormon church, to become involved in helping those with lives very different from his own. In an interview Thursday night on the Catholic network EWTN, he told anchor Raymond Arroyo that as a "small-p pastor" he learned a great deal about those who feel under siege, lonely, left out. What did he learn? How did his church help him learn it?

He must use humor, for three reasons. One is that wit breaks through and sharpens all points. Another is that it is natural to him. Before the voting in Iowa, he wryly told a friend that the caucuses were like the LaBrea Tar Pits: "No one comes out the way they went in." On a conference call recently, he asked a question of his staff. No one answered. Mr. Romney waited. "Bueller? Bueller?" he said, in a perfect imitation of Ben Stein.

More Peggy NoonanRead Peggy Noonan's previous columns

click here to order her book, Patriotic Grace .Third, President Obama can't stand to be made fun of. His pride won't allow it, his amour propre cannot countenance a joke at his own expense. If Mr. Romney lands a few very funny lines about the president's leadership, Mr. Obama will freak out. That would be fun, wouldn't it?

A small point with practical significance. Convention crowds are revved up. They want to stomp and cheer. During Mr. Romney's speech, they'll go crazy applauding and yelling. This is fun in the hall but tedious for the viewer at home. At some point Mr. Romney should signal, by his demeanor and through his text, that everyone should calm down so he can talk to America. Applause line, cheers, applause line—that's not political discourse, it's a ticket to nowhere.

***Finally, the big broadcast networks plan to give the Republicans (and the Democrats) only one hour a night of TV coverage.

They used to give all night, long as it took, and treat the proceedings with respect. What they give now, to the people of a great democracy fighting for its economic life in an uncertain world, is . . . an hour a night? For a national political convention?

This is a scandal. Mock them for it. This isn't Edward R. Murrow in charge of the news, it's Gordon Gekko in charge of programming.

***Much is uncertain, no one knows what will happen this year, how it will turn out. But when I think of Mr. Romney's speech I find myself thinking of Alan Shepard.

It's May 5, 1961, in Cape Canaveral, Fla., and everyone's fussing. This monitor's blinking and that one's beeping and Shepard is up there, at the top of a Redstone rocket, in a tiny little capsule called Friendship 7. Mission Control is hemming and hawing: Should we stay or should we go? Finally Shepard says: "Why don't you fix your little problem and light this candle?"

That's what a good speech and a good convention right now can do. There's a great race ahead. Make it come alive. Come on and light this candle.

It is good that Joe Biden is going to the Republican National Convention to hold high the flag of his party. People make fun of his gaffes, of his embarrassing verbal forays, but he's no fool and he knows how to take it to the other guy. The speech he is working on, to be given in the heart of downtown, just across from the convention site, will be stirring and stentorian: "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Tampa, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, 'Ich bin ein Tampon.'"